EPTXizor seems to think that, because monsters are dumb, they will always attack the tank, even if those enemies are nominally intelligent (like bandits) because you just can't ignore a sword as if you can ignore a wizard. This is equivalent to suggesting that league players will ignore the ADC in order to kill garen because garen has a sword.
[Tabletop] Enter Iris - Page 28
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
Xizor seems to think that, because monsters are dumb, they will always attack the tank, even if those enemies are nominally intelligent (like bandits) because you just can't ignore a sword as if you can ignore a wizard. This is equivalent to suggesting that league players will ignore the ADC in order to kill garen because garen has a sword. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
you see a group of people: a guy in leather with a bow walking behind a older man in plain clothes with a bag at his side, and a man in chain mail leading. and somehow you assume the guy in the middle must be a wizard, better run past the guy in chain mail swinging an axe at me. turns out the guy in the middle is a merchant, the bandits get cut down left and right as they run past the guy in chainmail while being hit with arrows. | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
| ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
armor isn't HARD to hit. it just absorbs the blow. like the real world. a guy doesn't suddenly get more nimble when he puts on full plate. but even a normal man who gets a blow to the chest feels it, even if it doesn't hurt him or cause injury. | ||
|
Goumindong
United States3529 Posts
On January 02 2015 06:05 PrinceXizor wrote: oh dear god, you are unable to understand english apparently. this is why no one should even humor your posts. you see a group of people: a guy in leather with a bow walking behind a older man in plain clothes with a bag at his side, and a man in chain mail leading. and somehow you assume the guy in the middle must be a wizard, better run past the guy in chain mail swinging an axe at me. turns out the guy in the middle is a merchant, the bandits get cut down left and right as they run past the guy in chainmail while being hit with arrows. Maybe the guy with an axe is a lumberjack. The world will never know. Other things they will never know how the guy in the middle never takes any combat actions to distinguish himself, how the guy with the axe gets more than one reaction/round and how the guy with the bow and axe gets more attacks/round because the bandits kill the wizard/merchant first. | ||
AsmodeusXI
United States15536 Posts
| ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
this is the last i'm going to talk to you about this, because you are being inane and just plain stupid about this. its a waste fo my time to talk to you about anything really. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 02 2015 05:10 Goumindong wrote: Sure but then you're just depending on the good graces of your DM to play all the intelligent monsters as emotionally compromised and untrained/inexperienced. And similarly for dumb monsters to be exceptionally dumb (woodland animals successfully differentiate between prey and predators) and also always come into situations in which they attack the tank first and switch to the tank of he stands near them. Why is it necessary for characters to fall into MMO tropes? An intelligent monster who recognizes a spellcaster as a greater threat as a fighter is going to attack the spellcaster. This is logical. What's illogical is artificial mechanics that impede this logical course of action. This is also why spellcasters have self-only defensive spells that would be WAY too powerful if they could be targeted on others (see: Mirror Image). | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
| ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
| ||
|
Duvon
Sweden2360 Posts
And don't Fighters have an attack that forces enemy to attack the fighter next move? | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On January 02 2015 07:28 WaveofShadow wrote: Should just make group 1/the one shot the actual campaign and be done with it i agree. this way we can listen to req be an ass to entire races of people out of character while pretending to be a paladin in character. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
| ||
|
AsmodeusXI
United States15536 Posts
On January 02 2015 07:28 WaveofShadow wrote: Should just make group 1/the one shot the actual campaign and be done with it Wouldn't be fair to the rest of you. I don't want that effort to be meaningless. That being said, it's hard for me to tell whether or not this is going to be fun for everyone the way this is devolving, and I'd prefer that it be that when since that's the whole point anyways. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On January 02 2015 11:32 wei2coolman wrote: Back in 3.5e perception check to sense magic is 60 or natty 20. Uhh, no? 1) Skill checks in 3.5 were never governed by "automatic succeed on natural 20". That only ever applied to attack rolls and saves. 2) None of the perception-related skills in 3.5e have an "locate magic being cast" function, certainly not with an explicitly outlined DC of 60. Hell, Spellcraft *identified a specific spell being cast* with only DC 15+spell level, so the spot/straight Wisdom check to identify that a spell *of some kind* is being cast would be way lower than that. I'd consider it automatic knowledge for anyone who has the Spellcraft skill at all, and for someone without it, it would still be reasonably easy. There's the "sense magical effect" function of Search with DC 60 or the "Detect Magical Aura" function of appraise at DC 50, but these are for identifying magical effects already in place with no visible caster. They also don't identify source and take time. Someone actively casting magic is much easier than that to locate unless they use feats or skill tricks to deliberately conceal it. 3) The fact that you're calling it "perception" makes me question when the last time you played 3.5e at all was. On January 02 2015 11:32 wei2coolman wrote: Also smart players would roll perception checks and/or specialized knowledge checks in the beginning of their combat phase to try and gather as much info as possible. (This info shouldn't be given for free, asmo) A lot of information about monsters, particularly common low-level adventuring monsters requires knowledge that's trivial or very easy to acquire. Anything within the range of what I consider DC 5 or lower (e.g. what would be "common knowledge" in the scope of the universe) I usually just say straight up because making people roll dice or explicitly mention when they want that information is needless busywork for the experienced player, and overly punishing for the newbie player who doesn't know what to ask for yet. | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On January 02 2015 11:32 wei2coolman wrote: I'm with px on this one. Let's put it this way. Back in 3.5e perception check to sense magic is 60 or natty 20. Short of dragon level wisdom/int, or someone truly mastered in magic is going to have any inkling on who's the spell caster. Similarly unless someone is highly experienced in combat or high level of combat knowledge is going to full understand tactic formations and how to attack the backline properly without getting rekt. Also smart players would roll perception checks and/or specialized knowledge checks in the beginning of their combat phase to try and gather as much info as possible. (This info shouldn't be given for free, asmo) You keep saying this. What info did you feel Asmo was giving too much of? I already mentioned doing all rolls privately, but I can't recall a time I felt he gave more information than we should have | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
Especially since I've regularly played campaigns with mage-fighters/psychic warriors/etc., even being armored/armed with heavy weapons isn't even a clear indication that someone is NOT a spellcaster. This applies to clerics as well, but usually they have some sort of religious symbols that make them more obvious. Though to the less pious, the distinctions between a cleric, a paladin, a monk, or even a non-magical non-combatant preacher are even harder. | ||
| ||
